The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, expansion and relocation, and NHL revenues.

If my hockey team loses 3 million a year, but the fact I own the building which my team plays in makes me 4.7 million. You, as a player, would be okay with making concessions in tune with the fact your owner is losing 3 million dollars a year?

Word. Was about to go there.. maybe the owners should get a percentage of that.

Hell, without the league that the owners fund, players would not have the ability to earn that sponsorship money.

I don't see why it's not included in HRR anyways. It's revenue that's related to hockey. It deserves to be included in the pot if you want to include non-hockey related revenue in the form of other arena events.

Thats nice, without the owners TAKING ALL OF THE RISK by paying said players their high salaries and everything else that goes with owning and operating a team, the players would not have the ability to earn these high wages and would have to go to Europe to play for less.

The players are not crying poor. I'm sure if they were, the owners would want to know exactly how much money they were making.

If an owner owns their arena, give me a reason on why they should have to include revenue made from other events. Why should concerts, basketball games, circuses, etc have anything to do with the business of hockey?

That's hockey related revenue. Not profit. All that non-hockey related revenue could easily bump and owner out of the red and into the black. To my understanding, that's how it works for Melynk at least.

So the owners are presenting the players with some creative bookkeeping as a way of hiding profits. And they're even willing to lose an entire season's worth of these hidden profits just to keep up the charade. I'm not buying it.

This has nothing to do with their first offer. Of course the first offer is going to get better. But what makes this completely different is that the offer has now gotten worse by MORE than the amount that separated the last two offers. You never recover from that. If the NHL completely buckles tomorrow and takes the PA's last offer, the PA still loses money as opposed to what they'd have made by taking the NHL's last offer (or at least a variation on it, which they never even bothered to negotiate for). The NHL isn't going to offer the PA more than the PA's last offer. And that means, de facto, the PA has already lost. Obviously, and badly, and sadly, because most of the PA doesn't seem to realize it.

Where is it written that the players have a 0% chance of getting anywhere close to their last offer?

It seems to me that in any negotiation you believe that the employee loses automatically.

If I go in thinking I can strike a deal that gets me 20 dollars....I am not going to offer to take 20 dollars, I'm going to ask for 40. I expect the other side to offer nothing or 5. I come back asking for 30. I'll never get the 40 I asked for in my first offer.....so I lost?!?

If my hockey team loses 3 million a year, but the fact I own the building which my team plays in makes me 4.7 million. You, as a player, would be okay with making concessions in tune with the fact your owner is losing 3 million dollars a year?

Why would the players get a share of non hockey related revenue from a building just because it's where they play?

Do you think they should also be on the hook for upkeep and repairs and refurbishment?

How about owners that do not own their buildings-should the players then pay a share of the rent? Why would the players be awarded some of the revenue but none of the costs?

If the players feel they deserve a piece of the non hockey related revenue, why shouldn't the owners get a chunk of the players endorsement revenue? That makes just about as much sense,actually , it makes more sense.

QUOTE=Powdered Toast Man;55345813]The players are not crying poor. I'm sure if they were, the owners would want to know exactly how much money they were making.[/QUOTE]

What about Krys Barch's cries of pain? His fear that some players may actually have to (gasp) work for a living after they retire? Or, as Eric Duhatschuk called it, Freedom 35.

So the owners are presenting the players with some creative bookkeeping as a way of hiding profits. And they're even willing to lose an entire season's worth of these hidden profits just to keep up the charade. I'm not buying it.

I'm sure they expect to make back any losses back in any possible deal. That's why the rich teams are sitting pretty, they expect something out of it.

I'm not saying the players deserve a percentage of arena revenues, I'm saying if you want to jump off and argue anything but "hockey related revenue" then it should be properly defined and made available. "Profit" has yet to be defined and has yet to be determined how relevant it is.

Where is it written that the players have a 0% chance of getting anywhere close to their last offer?

It seems to me that in any negotiation you believe that the employee loses automatically.

If I go in thinking I can strike a deal that gets me 20 dollars....I am not going to offer to take 20 dollars, I'm going to ask for 40. I expect the other side to offer nothing or 5. I come back asking for 30. I'll never get the 40 I asked for in my first offer.....so I lost?!?

You're not reading carefully. You can quit doing hypotheticals because we have actual facts here.

Difference between players last offer and owners last offer: $500M.

What the players lose with the cancellation of ~25 games: $500M.

Ergo, if the league comes to them TOMORROW and accepts the PA's last offer, but they still lose 25 games on the season, the players would have been better off just taking the owners offer a week ago.

Of course, that's not going to happen. The owners are likely to go for 49% now, since they pulled 50% off the table. Even if the union gets 50% back on the table, they're not going to get 50% and a full season ever again. And it's axiomatic that the players are NEVER going to get more than their last offer was for, so as soon as the season loses 25 games (which many would argue has either happened already or is a foregone conclusion) it's impossible for the players to get as much money as they could've a week ago. Not unless the players retract their offers and somehow get the league to go higher. Not happening.

Now that there are real dollars coming off the table with the cancellation of games, yes, we can measure how much money the players are losing, and it's more than they stand to gain from getting their way. That's called losing.

Thats nice, without the owners TAKING ALL OF THE RISK by paying said players their high salaries and everything else that goes with owning and operating a team, the players would not have the ability to earn these high wages and would have to go to Europe to play for less.

Makes ya wonder why anyone is willing to be an NHL owner......if it's soooooo bad to be one. So much risk, so much money lost....

In most markets there isn't much "risk". Established markets, can lose a few million or make a few....totally up to the Owner.

The players could arguably create their own league as they are the product. Owners can't.

To say the players don't take any risk is pretty ridiculous though....go tell Marc Savard that he doesn't take any risk.

Owners gave them the best offer they had contemplated and the PA isn't even accepting linkage. The gap is too broad. When the gap is broad enough, talking is only going to give people an opportunity to poison the well - get mad, make insulting offers, pull offers off the table. You need some distance and some dollars lost before people are going to come off their positions.